Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fpm should be able to build freebsd packages! #62

Closed
jtimberman opened this issue Jun 27, 2011 · 16 comments

Comments

@jtimberman
Copy link

@jtimberman jtimberman commented Jun 27, 2011

Because freebsd is awesome, of course ;).

@steakknife

This comment has been minimized.

@jordansissel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

@jordansissel jordansissel commented May 24, 2012

building a freebsd package would actually be easier than that, I think.

FreeBSD packages are essentially tarballs with some metadata files inside:

+CONTENTS
+COMMENT
+DESC
+MTREE_DIRS

Should be pretty trivial to hack together.

@steakknife

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@steakknife steakknife commented May 24, 2012

@jordansissel Then go for it. :)

@jordansissel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

@jordansissel jordansissel commented May 24, 2012

Hah, I'll wait for someone to send me a pull request that makes it happen. I don't actually use freebsd anymore ;)

@steakknife

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@steakknife steakknife commented May 24, 2012

"Patches welcome!" ;D

@steakknife

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@steakknife steakknife commented May 24, 2012

Just reminded meetBSD is this nov. iX parties > Ron Conway's.

@masochist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@masochist masochist commented Mar 13, 2014

Bumping this to mention that FreeBSD 10 (the latest production version) has a new package manager that works differently. A client is looking at moving to FreeBSD, and there are a lot of reasons to use FreeBSD 10, so I'd like to add support for the new packaging system.

I have a question along these lines. The new package manager provides a C library API for everything. Would people prefer I use the C library through ffi (most robust approach) or would it be preferred to generate files directly? I would really rather not break the encapsulation here now that there's a nice library provided for everything.

@r4um

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@r4um r4um commented Mar 13, 2014

I have a question along these lines. The new package manager provides a C library API for everything. Would people prefer I use the C library through ffi (most robust approach) or would it be preferred to generate files directly? I would really rather not break the encapsulation here now that there's a nice library provided for everything.

Direct generation is preferred assuming format is easy to replicate (for example debians basically use
ar/tar format). This way people can generate packages accross platforms, on Linux, OSX etc.
(one of the major goals of fpm)

Are you planning on the pkgng format ?
From the first looks seems would be possible to have it in fpm, package is tar archive and uses yaml for metadata.

@masochist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@masochist masochist commented Mar 13, 2014

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:35:35 -0700, Pranay Kanwar wrote:

Direct generation is preferred assuming format is easy to replicate
(for example debians basically use ar/tar format). This way people
can generate packages accross platforms, on Linux, OSX etc. (one
of the major goals of fpm)

That's fair enough, but for what it's worth the library should be
portable to other platforms; it's very simple C.

Are you planning on the pkgng
format ? From the first looks seems would be possible to have it
in fpm, package is tar archive and uses yaml for metadata.

Yes, I'm only interested in pkgng.

Chris Nehren

@brejoc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@brejoc brejoc commented Sep 9, 2014

@apeiron I think porting the C code to other platforms would be overkill. Judging from the docs (and @jordansissel also mentioned it) pkgng is a every simple tar with some metadata-files (yaml and scripts) inside. It should be easier to just implement that in Ruby.

@subnetmarco

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@subnetmarco subnetmarco commented Jun 2, 2015

+1

@jordansissel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

@jordansissel jordansissel commented Jun 2, 2015

#870 (by @fetep) is working towards this

@subnetmarco subnetmarco referenced this issue Jun 2, 2015
@subnetmarco

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@subnetmarco subnetmarco commented Sep 30, 2015

Any updates on this?

@kylegato

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@kylegato kylegato commented Apr 7, 2016

+1 want this

@hatt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@hatt hatt commented Apr 8, 2016

@jordansissel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

@jordansissel jordansissel commented Nov 28, 2016

#1073 (shipped with fpm 1.5.0) solves this. Closing! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
9 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.